Rosner's Domain: Richman vs. Rosner: Gaza disengagement decision was not democratic

A post I published yesterday (and even more so an answer I gave in an interview a week ago) ignited a debate about the ways American Jews can - or should - support Israel. My point was: support should be for the country. Supporting "the people" is usualy an excuse for those who only want to support their own political goals. I was harshly criticizing such position expressed by fellow-blogger Rick Richman (read it here). It is now time for him to respond, in some detail, and to explain why he is right and I'm wrong.

So - here is Rick Richman, in his own words. No editing:

The issue you discussed in "Support for Israel, not for 'the people' of Israel" is an important one.  As you know from my post, I agreed with your fundamental point:  Israel is a democracy making life-and-death decisions, and those decisions should be accepted by American Jews where they are made through a democratic process. Where we apparently disagreed (if I am reading "nonsense" and "absurd" correctly) is whether the Gaza disengagement was the product of such a process. 

At the time of the disengagement, I published several posts contending there should be a referendum, since Ariel Sharon had been elected on an explicit promise not to withdraw from Gaza, and the issue had been the central one in the campaign.  I found the reasons advanced for dispensing with a referendum unconvincing:  there was no precedent; it would allegedly take too much time; it was supposedly too difficult to word the question (a problem not encountered in the public opinion polls cited to support the disengagement); etc.  

I did not understand the opposition of disengagement supporters to a referendum before expelling 8,000 Jews from their homes, destroying entire Jewish communities, and turning over Gaza to terrorists -- particularly since the supporters asserted opinion polls showed the public was in favor.   

I found the answer in two places:  first, in a Haaretz editorial published as the Gaza retreat drew near (and as opposition to it increased), noting the rejection of the EU Constitution by French voters and warning it showed the danger of a disengagement referendum.  Haaretz argued governments were elected to "bear the burden of making difficult decisions," that the public did "not weigh the constraints and the available resources the way elected officials are supposed to do," and that a referendum would transfer the vote "from the domain of the intellect to that of emotion."  

In plainer English, Haaretz thought the public was too stupid to vote:  they were short on intellect and long on emotion, didn't weigh constraints or available resources, and thus were not the appropriate people to make "difficult decisions." 

The second place was a conversation with a prominent Israeli political scientist who opposed a referendum but admitted the public reasons were unconvincing. He said the real reason was that, while polls showed nearly two-thirds of the public supported the disengagement plan, 20 percent consisted of Israeli Arabs. In terms of the Jewish vote, the plan did not command a majority.  He said a referendum would make that clear, and then make it politically impossible to proceed. 

The Gaza disengagement was thus the product of an elite that reneged on its electoral promises, thought it knew better than the people, and was afraid to let the people make the ultimate decision. I do not think it is nonsense to suggest this was not a process to be proud of, much less one to prove your argument that the government, by definition, always represents the wishes of the people unless the prime minister is removed. 

I encourage your readers to read the full exchange between you and Doris Wise Montrose, as well as the observations about it by the commenters at Jewish Current Issues.